Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturbo
The UCC Connection – INTERESTING READ FOR OPPTs
Posted by nesaraaustralia ⋅ March 22, 2013 ⋅ Leave a Comment
Filed Under current-events, government, human-rights
FOREWORD
This is slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes
of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make
available the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for
an accessible and understandable explanation of the confusing state of
the government and the courts. It should be helpful to those who may
have difficulty learning from such lectures, or those who want to
develop a deeper understanding of this information without having to
listen to three or four hours of recorded material.
The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be
overwhelming and often frightening; and like most fear, eventually, with
the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the
mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we
must “get a good lawyer,” but that is becoming increasingly difficult,
if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we
find that the lawyers quickly take our money, and then tell us as the
ship is sinking, “I can’t help you with that – I’m an officer of the
court.”
Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a “snowball’s chance …”
is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to come to an understanding
of the true nature of the Law. The attorney lawyers have established and
secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by
implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person
to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English
words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly
complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp – are lawyers really as
smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been
through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer
has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law.
Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a lawyer, and as much, he has a way of
explaining law to us that puts it well within our reach. Consider also
that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough
that the people could understand, specifically so that it would not have
to be interpreted.
So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that “THE BUCK
STOPS HERE!” It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and
putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our
God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take from us. It
is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from
the inevitable intrusion into our lives by those who live parasitically
off the labor, skill and talents of others.
To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation of
our plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it. Please take note
that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his
understanding, which he is always refining, expanding, improving. It is,
as all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to begin our
own journey into understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to
others; greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of lives in
peace, freedom and praise.
“I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.”
INTRODUCTION
I was asked to testify in a tax case as an expert witness. After many
days of preparation, I felt confident of my research. I spent over 30
minutes presenting many Supreme Court decisions that supported the
defendant’s position. The prosecution concluded his statements, and to
my amazement, the judge told the jury that they could only consider
certain facts, none of which were the facts I had given.
As soon as the trial was over I went around to the judge’s office and
he was just coming in through his back door. I said, “Judge, by what
authority do you overturn the standing decisions of the United States
Supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I read that case law. Now how
do you, a District Judge, have authority to overturn decisions of the
Supreme Court?” He says. “Oh, those were old decisions.” I said, “Those
are standing decisions. They have never been overturned. I don’t care
how old they are; you have no right to overturn a standing decision of
the United States Supreme Court in a District Court.”
PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY
He said, “Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I’ll
honor it, but all the decision you read were prior to 1938, and I don’t
honor those decisions.” I asked what happened in 1938. He said, “Prior
to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the
Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was
being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those
Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy.” I asked him what
happened in 1938? He said that he had already told me too much – he
wasn’t going to tell me any more.
1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD
Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the
year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie
Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie Railroad for damages when he was
struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the
tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial
(Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract
with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the
company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the
right to sue.
This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift
v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme
Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case
on the Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this
case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court
ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable
Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common
Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with
Equity.
This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I
determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and
not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle
missing.
A FRIEND IN THE COURT
Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won’t make friends
with a judge if you go into court like a “wolf in black sheep country.”
You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If
you go into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what
the law is – how he had better uphold the law or else. Remember the
verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and
harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and harmless,
and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of
questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a
corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn’t
want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the
clerk’s office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said,
“You’re an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you’re ever in town, stop
by, and if I’m not sitting on a case we will visit.
AMERICA IS BANKRUPT
Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with
the Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than the
Public Law. He said, “In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys
and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is
what we were told:
America is a bankrupt nation – it is owned completely by its
creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they
own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments.
Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly.
Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction – call it anything
you want, but do not call it Admiralty.
ADMIRALTY COURTS
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your
defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your
defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has
jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute.
If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the
record that you are in Admiralty Court, you can demand that the
international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party,
and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence.
No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached.
So you say, just innocently like a lamb,
“Well, I didn’t know that I got involved with an international
maritime contract, so, in good faith, I deny that such a contract
exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then,
pursuant to section 3-501 of your UCC, (Presentment), the prosecutor
will have no difficulty placing the [alleged] contract into evidence, so
that I may examine and [possibly] challenge the validity of the
contract.”
What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence.
They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole
nation, and that we are their slaves.
NOT EXPEDIENT
But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit that
they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world.
The reason they don’t want to tell everyone that they own everything is
that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are
uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they can
gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a
single WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the
courts are operating under. When we understand these things, we realize
that there are certain secrets they don’t want to admit, and we can use
this to our benefit.
JURISDICTION
The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:
Common Law
Common Law is based on God’s law. Anytime someone is charged under
the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the
Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on
the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make
a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty,
or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any
government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself.
For instance, when you cross over the state lines in most states, you
will see a sign which says, ” BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS – IT’S THE LAW. ”
This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not
buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law
cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT
, and is punishable.
Equity Law
Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to
perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if
you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and
you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract.
Now this can only be a civil action – not criminal. In Equity
Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled
to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as
directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which
is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws, Equity Laws? No, they are
not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the
letter of a contract.
Admiralty/Maritime Laws
This is civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has
Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but
this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what
jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (all traffic codes, etc) are under.
Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful
failure to file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a
valid international contract in force.
However, the courts don’t want to admit that they are operating under
Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdictions, so they took the international law or
Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the Supreme
Court decided in the Erie Railroad case – that the decisions will be
based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal
penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it,
Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.
COURTS OF CONTRACT
You must ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged
with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn’t the judge
sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand
the Constitution, in Article I, § 10, gives us the unlimited right to
contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property
of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives
two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced – Equity or Admiralty.
But we find them being in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the
embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges
into a corner in their own courts. We will cover this more later.
CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY
Under the Common Law, every contract must be enter into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and
enforceable. These are characteristic -it must be based on substance.
For example, contracts used to read, “For one dollar and other valuable
considerations, I will paint your house, etc. That was a valid contract –
the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a
contract that said, “For one Federal Reserve Note and other
considerations, I will paint your house….” And suppose, for example, I
painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court
and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a
“colorable”1 dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law
Jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.
colorABLE MONEY – colorABLE COURTS
The word “colorable” means something that appears to be genuine, but
is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar,
but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is
“colorable.” If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the
contract becomes a “colorable” contract. And “colorable” contracts must
be enforced under a “colorable” jurisdiction. So by creating Federal
Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the
kinds of contracts which use them. We now have what is called Statutory
Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction.
1 colorable: That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit,
feigned have the appearance of truth. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
It is ” colorable ” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing
because we are using ” colorable money .” colorable Admiralty is now
known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let’s see how we got under this
Statutory Jurisdiction.
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
The government set up a “colorable” law system to fit the “colorable”
currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of
redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable
in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become
unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely
“colorable” from start to finish. this system of law was codified as the
Uniform Commercial Code , and has been adopted in every state. This is
“colorable” law, and it is used in all the courts.
I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is
bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says “Jump!” then the
slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut off his
head. As slaves we have no rights. But the creditors/masters had to
cover that up, so they created a system of law called the Uniform
Commercial Code. This “colorable” jurisdiction under the Uniform
Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what happened.
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT
One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is
that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into (1) knowingly, (2)
voluntarily, and (3) intentionally.
Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, contracts are
unnecessary. Under this new law, “agreements” can be binding, and if you
only exercise the benefits of an “agreements,” it is presumed or
implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those
benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are
obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with
that benefit. The method has been to get everyone exercising a benefit ,
and they don’t even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some
people think it is the driver’s license, the marriage license or the
birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none of these.
COMPELLED BENEFIT
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the
privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying
debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a
quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the
milk bought the dollar – substance for substance. But if I use a
Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is
no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in
exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this
benefit :
Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all
over the United States of America, it will be legal tender for all
debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you cannot
be sued for not paying your debt.
So now they have said, “We going to help you out, and you can just
discharge your debts instead of paying your debts.” When we use this
“colorable” money to discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common Law
court. We can only use a “colorable” court. We are completely under the
UCC, using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging
debt rather than paying debt.
REMEDY AND RECOURSE
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy
and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you
recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the
Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long
time we could not find them. If you go to a law library and ask to see
the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books
completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one
volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally
written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the
Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC. They are found right in the
first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103.
REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights
the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by
application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).7)
It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a
commercial international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, ” I
DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ,” the judge will most likely say, “You
mention the Constitution again, and I’ll find you in contempt of court
!” Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to
uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under
one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French
government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax
in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, “I demand
my Constitutional Right?” No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN’T
APPLY TO ME – I’M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of
rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged – not under some
other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation
of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308 (old 1-207).
UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say:
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a
reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion
at a later date . (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9)
You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
The Sufficiency of the Reservation – Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient,
such as “WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).4)
Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve
Notes (FRNs) -in any way, shape or manner – under your signature write:
Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207). This reserves your rights. You
can show, at 1-308 (old 1-207).4 that you have sufficiently reserved
your rights.
It is very important to understand just what this means. For example,
one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the
judge just what he meant by writing “without prejudice UCC 1-308 (old
1-207)” on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand
the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the
ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he
meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not
prejudiced against anyone …. The judge knew that the man had no idea
what it meant, and fined him an additional $25.00 for a frivolous
defense. You must know what it means.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to UCC 1-308
When you see “Without Prejudice” UCC 1-308 in connection with your signature, you are saying:
“I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any
contract, commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter
knowingly , voluntarily , and intentionally . And furthermore, I do not
and will not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any
unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy.”
Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this
demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple
fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows
that you had reserved your rights before signing the document.
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial
agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars,
is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money , so you have to use
Federal Reserve Notes – you have to accept the benefit. the government
has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited
liability, and you don’t have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But
if you did not reserve your rights under 1-308 (old 1-207).7, you are
compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey
every statute , ordinance and regulation of the government, at all
levels of government – federal, state and local.
If you understand this, you will be asked to explain it to the judge
when asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court.
You will also need to understand UCC 1-103 – the argument and recourse.
If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and
photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the
Anderson [Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, Lawyers Cooperative
Publishing Company] edition. Some of the law libraries will only have
the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In
Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts, and most
importantly, it is written in plain English.
RECOURSE
The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force ,
except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in
harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent
to abrogate the Common Law .
This is the argument we use in court:
The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the
Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United
States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is
not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to
abolish the Common Law entirely.
Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit
reservation of your rights at 1-308 (old 1-207), you may then insist
that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.
If the charge is a traffic, you may demand that the court produce the
injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you
were charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt , you may ask the
court who was injured as a result of your failure to “buckle up.”
However, if the judge won’t listen to you and just moves ahead with
the case, then you will want to read to him that last sentence of
1-103.6 which states:
The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.
Tell the judge:
“Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my
right under the Uniform Commercial Code.” I have a remedy, under the,
UCC to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the
remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the
Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party.”
If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question:
“Let me see if I understand, Your Honor. Has this court made a
judicial determination that the sections 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103 of
the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are
operating under, are not valid law before this court?”
Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of
the Code and uphold another? If he answers, “yes,” then you say:
“I put this court on notice that I am appealing your judicial determination.”
Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge
knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION – TRAFFIC COURT
Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us look
at a court situation such as a traffic violation. Assume you ran through
a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic ticket.
1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least
three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant and cooperative with the
officer. Explain to him that you are very busy and ask if he could
please set your court appearance for about three weeks away.
[At this point we need to remember the government's trick: "I'm from
the government, and I'm here to help you." Now we want to use this
approach with them).
2. The next step is to go the clerk of the traffic court and say:
"I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to
save the government some money (this will get their attention). I am
undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As you know, in an appeal, I have
to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't have a court
reporter. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money to run me through this
court and then to have to give me a trial de novo in a court of record.
I do need a transcript for appealing, and to save the government some
money, maybe you could schedule me to appear in a court of record."
You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually agree
that there is plenty of time to schedule your trial for a court of
record. Now your first appearance is in a court of record and not in a
traffic court, where there is no record.
3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges: driving
through a yellow light or whatever, and this is a violation of ordinance
XYZ. He will ask, " Do you understand the charges against you ?"
4. It is very important to get it read into the record, that you do
not understand the charges. With that in the record, the court cannot
move forward to judge the facts. This will be answered later.
5. "Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask before I
can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it could be answered if I
could put the officer on the stand for a moment and ask him a few short
questions.
Judge: "I don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and have him take the stand."
"Is this the instrument that you gave me?" (Handing him the traffic citation).
Officer: "Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has the other portion of it."
"Where did you get my address that you wrote on that citation?"
Officer: "Well, I got it from your driver's license."
(Handing the officer your driver's license) "Is this the document you copied my name and address from?"
Officer: "Yes, this is where I got it."
"While you've got it in your hand, would you read the signature
that's on that license? (The officer reads the signature). "While you're
there, would you read into the record what it says under the
signature?"
Officer: "It says, "Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308." [old 1-207]
Judge: “Let me see that license!” (He looks at it turns to the
officer). “You didn’t notice this printing under the signature on this
license, when you copied his name and address onto the ticket?”
Officer: “Oh, no, I was just getting the address – I didn’t look down there.”
Judge: “You’re not very observant as an officer. Therefore, I’m
afraid I cannot accept your testimony in regards to the facts of this
case. This case is dismissed.”
6.a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;
b. you had done it sufficiently by writing “Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308 (old 1-207)” on your driver’s license;
c. the statute would now have to be read on harmony with the Common
Law, and the Common Law says the statute exists, but there is no injured
party; and
d. since there is no injured party or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.
5. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case, then you will want to ask him the following question:
“Your Honor, let me understand this correctly, has the court made a
judicial determination that it has authority under the jurisdiction that
it is operating under, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial
Code which have been called to its attention? If he says, yes, tell him
that you put the court on notice that you will appeal that judicial
determination, and that if you are damaged by his actions, you will sue
him in Common Law action – under the jurisdiction of the U.C.C.”
QUESTIONS AND REVIEW
Note: These are some of the questions asked after the main lecture.
Some are restatements of material presented earlier, but they contain
very valuable information which is worth repeating.
COURTROOM TECHNIQUES
Question: How did you “box in” the judge?
This is easy to do if you don’t know too much. I didn’t know too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a little ignorant.
If you are arrested and you go to court, just remember that in a
criminal action, you have to understand the law or it is a reversible
error for the court to try you. If you don’t understand the law, they
can’t try you.
In any traffic court case or tax case you are called into court and the judge reads the law and then asks,
“Do you understand the charges?”
Defendant: No, (Your Honor,) I do not!
Judge:
Well, what’s so difficult about that charge? Either you drove the
wrong way on a one-way street or you didn’t. You can only go one way on
that street, and if you go the other way, it’s a fifty dollar fine.
What’s so difficult about this that you don’t understand?”
D: Well, Your Honor, it’s not the letter of the law, but rather the
nature of the law that I don’t understand. The Sixth Amendment of the
Constitution gives me the right to request the court to explain the
nature of any action against me, and upon my request, the court has the
duty to answer. I have a question about the nature of this action.
J: Well, what is that – what do you want to know?
Always! Ask them some easy questions first, as this establishes that they are answering. You ask:
D: Well, Your Honor, is this a Civil or Criminal Action?”
J: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action there could be no fine, so it has to be criminal).
D: Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will
show that this action against ___(Straw Man Name)___ is a criminal
action, is that right?
J: Yes.
D: I would like to ask another question about this criminal action.
There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution; one
is under the Common Law , and the other deals with International
Maritime Contracts , under an Admiralty Jurisdiction . Equity is Civil,
and you said this is a Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be
under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me, Your
Honor, is, there is no Corpus Delicti here that gives this court a
jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common Law.
Therefore, it doesn’t appear to me that this court is moving under the
Common Law.
J: No, I can assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law.
D: Well, thank you, your Honor, but now you make the charge against
me even more difficult to understand, the only other criminal
jurisdiction would apply only if there was an International Maritime
Contract involved and I was a party to it, it had been Breached, and the
court was operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
I don’t believe I have ever been under any International Maritime
Contract, so I would deny that one exists. I would have to demand that
such a contract, if it does exist, be placed into evidence, so that I
may contest it, but surely, this court is not operating under an
Admiralty Jurisdiction.
You just put words in the judge’s mouth.
J: No, I can assure you, we’re not operating under an Admiralty
Jurisdiction. We’re not out in the ocean somewhere – we’re right here in
the middle of the State of North Carolina, No, this is not an Admiralty
Jurisdiction.
D: Thank you, Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than ever. If
this/these charge/s is/are not under the Common Law, or under Admiralty –
and those are the only criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the
Constitution – what kind of jurisdiction could this court be operating
under?
J: It’s Statutory Jurisdiction.
D: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I’m glad you told me that. But I have
never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend under that, I
would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory
Jurisdiction. Can you provide me with the location of a copy?
Share this:
Thanks to: http://nesaraaustralia.com
Posted by nesaraaustralia ⋅ March 22, 2013 ⋅ Leave a Comment
Filed Under current-events, government, human-rights
FOREWORD
This is slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes
of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make
available the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for
an accessible and understandable explanation of the confusing state of
the government and the courts. It should be helpful to those who may
have difficulty learning from such lectures, or those who want to
develop a deeper understanding of this information without having to
listen to three or four hours of recorded material.
The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be
overwhelming and often frightening; and like most fear, eventually, with
the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the
mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we
must “get a good lawyer,” but that is becoming increasingly difficult,
if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we
find that the lawyers quickly take our money, and then tell us as the
ship is sinking, “I can’t help you with that – I’m an officer of the
court.”
Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a “snowball’s chance …”
is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to come to an understanding
of the true nature of the Law. The attorney lawyers have established and
secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by
implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person
to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English
words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly
complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp – are lawyers really as
smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been
through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer
has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law.
Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a lawyer, and as much, he has a way of
explaining law to us that puts it well within our reach. Consider also
that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough
that the people could understand, specifically so that it would not have
to be interpreted.
So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that “THE BUCK
STOPS HERE!” It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and
putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our
God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take from us. It
is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from
the inevitable intrusion into our lives by those who live parasitically
off the labor, skill and talents of others.
To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation of
our plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it. Please take note
that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his
understanding, which he is always refining, expanding, improving. It is,
as all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to begin our
own journey into understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to
others; greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of lives in
peace, freedom and praise.
“I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.”
INTRODUCTION
I was asked to testify in a tax case as an expert witness. After many
days of preparation, I felt confident of my research. I spent over 30
minutes presenting many Supreme Court decisions that supported the
defendant’s position. The prosecution concluded his statements, and to
my amazement, the judge told the jury that they could only consider
certain facts, none of which were the facts I had given.
As soon as the trial was over I went around to the judge’s office and
he was just coming in through his back door. I said, “Judge, by what
authority do you overturn the standing decisions of the United States
Supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I read that case law. Now how
do you, a District Judge, have authority to overturn decisions of the
Supreme Court?” He says. “Oh, those were old decisions.” I said, “Those
are standing decisions. They have never been overturned. I don’t care
how old they are; you have no right to overturn a standing decision of
the United States Supreme Court in a District Court.”
PUBLIC LAW V. PUBLIC POLICY
He said, “Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I’ll
honor it, but all the decision you read were prior to 1938, and I don’t
honor those decisions.” I asked what happened in 1938. He said, “Prior
to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the
Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was
being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those
Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy.” I asked him what
happened in 1938? He said that he had already told me too much – he
wasn’t going to tell me any more.
1938 AND THE ERIE RAILROAD
Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the
year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie
Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie Railroad for damages when he was
struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the
tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial
(Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract
with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the
company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the
right to sue.
This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift
v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme
Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case
on the Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this
case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court
ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable
Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common
Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with
Equity.
This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I
determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and
not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle
missing.
A FRIEND IN THE COURT
Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won’t make friends
with a judge if you go into court like a “wolf in black sheep country.”
You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If
you go into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what
the law is – how he had better uphold the law or else. Remember the
verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and
harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and harmless,
and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of
questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a
corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn’t
want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the
clerk’s office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said,
“You’re an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you’re ever in town, stop
by, and if I’m not sitting on a case we will visit.
AMERICA IS BANKRUPT
Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with
the Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than the
Public Law. He said, “In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys
and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is
what we were told:
America is a bankrupt nation – it is owned completely by its
creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they
own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments.
Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly.
Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction – call it anything
you want, but do not call it Admiralty.
ADMIRALTY COURTS
The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your
defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your
defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has
jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute.
If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the
record that you are in Admiralty Court, you can demand that the
international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party,
and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence.
No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached.
So you say, just innocently like a lamb,
“Well, I didn’t know that I got involved with an international
maritime contract, so, in good faith, I deny that such a contract
exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then,
pursuant to section 3-501 of your UCC, (Presentment), the prosecutor
will have no difficulty placing the [alleged] contract into evidence, so
that I may examine and [possibly] challenge the validity of the
contract.”
What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence.
They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole
nation, and that we are their slaves.
NOT EXPEDIENT
But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit that
they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world.
The reason they don’t want to tell everyone that they own everything is
that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are
uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they can
gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a
single WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the
courts are operating under. When we understand these things, we realize
that there are certain secrets they don’t want to admit, and we can use
this to our benefit.
JURISDICTION
The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:
Common Law
Common Law is based on God’s law. Anytime someone is charged under
the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the
Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on
the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make
a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty,
or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any
government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself.
For instance, when you cross over the state lines in most states, you
will see a sign which says, ” BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS – IT’S THE LAW. ”
This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not
buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law
cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT
, and is punishable.
Equity Law
Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to
perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if
you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and
you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract.
Now this can only be a civil action – not criminal. In Equity
Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled
to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as
directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which
is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws, Equity Laws? No, they are
not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the
letter of a contract.
Admiralty/Maritime Laws
This is civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has
Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but
this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what
jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (all traffic codes, etc) are under.
Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful
failure to file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a
valid international contract in force.
However, the courts don’t want to admit that they are operating under
Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdictions, so they took the international law or
Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the Supreme
Court decided in the Erie Railroad case – that the decisions will be
based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal
penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it,
Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.
COURTS OF CONTRACT
You must ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged
with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn’t the judge
sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand
the Constitution, in Article I, § 10, gives us the unlimited right to
contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property
of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives
two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced – Equity or Admiralty.
But we find them being in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the
embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges
into a corner in their own courts. We will cover this more later.
CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY
Under the Common Law, every contract must be enter into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and
enforceable. These are characteristic -it must be based on substance.
For example, contracts used to read, “For one dollar and other valuable
considerations, I will paint your house, etc. That was a valid contract –
the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a
contract that said, “For one Federal Reserve Note and other
considerations, I will paint your house….” And suppose, for example, I
painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court
and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a
“colorable”1 dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law
Jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.
colorABLE MONEY – colorABLE COURTS
The word “colorable” means something that appears to be genuine, but
is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar,
but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is
“colorable.” If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the
contract becomes a “colorable” contract. And “colorable” contracts must
be enforced under a “colorable” jurisdiction. So by creating Federal
Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the
kinds of contracts which use them. We now have what is called Statutory
Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction.
1 colorable: That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit,
feigned have the appearance of truth. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
It is ” colorable ” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing
because we are using ” colorable money .” colorable Admiralty is now
known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let’s see how we got under this
Statutory Jurisdiction.
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
The government set up a “colorable” law system to fit the “colorable”
currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of
redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable
in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become
unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely
“colorable” from start to finish. this system of law was codified as the
Uniform Commercial Code , and has been adopted in every state. This is
“colorable” law, and it is used in all the courts.
I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is
bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says “Jump!” then the
slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut off his
head. As slaves we have no rights. But the creditors/masters had to
cover that up, so they created a system of law called the Uniform
Commercial Code. This “colorable” jurisdiction under the Uniform
Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what happened.
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT
One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is
that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into (1) knowingly, (2)
voluntarily, and (3) intentionally.
Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, contracts are
unnecessary. Under this new law, “agreements” can be binding, and if you
only exercise the benefits of an “agreements,” it is presumed or
implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those
benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are
obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with
that benefit. The method has been to get everyone exercising a benefit ,
and they don’t even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some
people think it is the driver’s license, the marriage license or the
birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none of these.
COMPELLED BENEFIT
I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the
privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying
debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a
quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the
milk bought the dollar – substance for substance. But if I use a
Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is
no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in
exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this
benefit :
Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all
over the United States of America, it will be legal tender for all
debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you cannot
be sued for not paying your debt.
So now they have said, “We going to help you out, and you can just
discharge your debts instead of paying your debts.” When we use this
“colorable” money to discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common Law
court. We can only use a “colorable” court. We are completely under the
UCC, using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging
debt rather than paying debt.
REMEDY AND RECOURSE
Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy
and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you
recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the
Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long
time we could not find them. If you go to a law library and ask to see
the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books
completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one
volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally
written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the
Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC. They are found right in the
first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103.
REMEDY
The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights
the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by
application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).7)
It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a
commercial international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, ” I
DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ,” the judge will most likely say, “You
mention the Constitution again, and I’ll find you in contempt of court
!” Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to
uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under
one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French
government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax
in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, “I demand
my Constitutional Right?” No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN’T
APPLY TO ME – I’M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of
rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged – not under some
other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation
of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308 (old 1-207).
UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say:
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a
reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion
at a later date . (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9)
You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
The Sufficiency of the Reservation – Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient,
such as “WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).4)
Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve
Notes (FRNs) -in any way, shape or manner – under your signature write:
Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207). This reserves your rights. You
can show, at 1-308 (old 1-207).4 that you have sufficiently reserved
your rights.
It is very important to understand just what this means. For example,
one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the
judge just what he meant by writing “without prejudice UCC 1-308 (old
1-207)” on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand
the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the
ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he
meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not
prejudiced against anyone …. The judge knew that the man had no idea
what it meant, and fined him an additional $25.00 for a frivolous
defense. You must know what it means.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to UCC 1-308
When you see “Without Prejudice” UCC 1-308 in connection with your signature, you are saying:
“I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any
contract, commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter
knowingly , voluntarily , and intentionally . And furthermore, I do not
and will not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any
unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy.”
Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this
demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple
fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows
that you had reserved your rights before signing the document.
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial
agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars,
is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money , so you have to use
Federal Reserve Notes – you have to accept the benefit. the government
has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited
liability, and you don’t have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But
if you did not reserve your rights under 1-308 (old 1-207).7, you are
compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey
every statute , ordinance and regulation of the government, at all
levels of government – federal, state and local.
If you understand this, you will be asked to explain it to the judge
when asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court.
You will also need to understand UCC 1-103 – the argument and recourse.
If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and
photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the
Anderson [Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, Lawyers Cooperative
Publishing Company] edition. Some of the law libraries will only have
the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In
Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts, and most
importantly, it is written in plain English.
RECOURSE
The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force ,
except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in
harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent
to abrogate the Common Law .
This is the argument we use in court:
The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the
Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United
States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is
not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to
abolish the Common Law entirely.
Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit
reservation of your rights at 1-308 (old 1-207), you may then insist
that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.
If the charge is a traffic, you may demand that the court produce the
injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you
were charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt , you may ask the
court who was injured as a result of your failure to “buckle up.”
However, if the judge won’t listen to you and just moves ahead with
the case, then you will want to read to him that last sentence of
1-103.6 which states:
The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.
Tell the judge:
“Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my
right under the Uniform Commercial Code.” I have a remedy, under the,
UCC to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the
remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the
Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party.”
If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question:
“Let me see if I understand, Your Honor. Has this court made a
judicial determination that the sections 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103 of
the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are
operating under, are not valid law before this court?”
Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of
the Code and uphold another? If he answers, “yes,” then you say:
“I put this court on notice that I am appealing your judicial determination.”
Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge
knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION – TRAFFIC COURT
Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us look
at a court situation such as a traffic violation. Assume you ran through
a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic ticket.
1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least
three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant and cooperative with the
officer. Explain to him that you are very busy and ask if he could
please set your court appearance for about three weeks away.
[At this point we need to remember the government's trick: "I'm from
the government, and I'm here to help you." Now we want to use this
approach with them).
2. The next step is to go the clerk of the traffic court and say:
"I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to
save the government some money (this will get their attention). I am
undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As you know, in an appeal, I have
to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn't have a court
reporter. It would be a waste of taxpayer's money to run me through this
court and then to have to give me a trial de novo in a court of record.
I do need a transcript for appealing, and to save the government some
money, maybe you could schedule me to appear in a court of record."
You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually agree
that there is plenty of time to schedule your trial for a court of
record. Now your first appearance is in a court of record and not in a
traffic court, where there is no record.
3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges: driving
through a yellow light or whatever, and this is a violation of ordinance
XYZ. He will ask, " Do you understand the charges against you ?"
4. It is very important to get it read into the record, that you do
not understand the charges. With that in the record, the court cannot
move forward to judge the facts. This will be answered later.
5. "Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask before I
can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it could be answered if I
could put the officer on the stand for a moment and ask him a few short
questions.
Judge: "I don't see why not. Let's swear the officer in and have him take the stand."
"Is this the instrument that you gave me?" (Handing him the traffic citation).
Officer: "Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has the other portion of it."
"Where did you get my address that you wrote on that citation?"
Officer: "Well, I got it from your driver's license."
(Handing the officer your driver's license) "Is this the document you copied my name and address from?"
Officer: "Yes, this is where I got it."
"While you've got it in your hand, would you read the signature
that's on that license? (The officer reads the signature). "While you're
there, would you read into the record what it says under the
signature?"
Officer: "It says, "Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308." [old 1-207]
Judge: “Let me see that license!” (He looks at it turns to the
officer). “You didn’t notice this printing under the signature on this
license, when you copied his name and address onto the ticket?”
Officer: “Oh, no, I was just getting the address – I didn’t look down there.”
Judge: “You’re not very observant as an officer. Therefore, I’m
afraid I cannot accept your testimony in regards to the facts of this
case. This case is dismissed.”
6.a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;
b. you had done it sufficiently by writing “Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308 (old 1-207)” on your driver’s license;
c. the statute would now have to be read on harmony with the Common
Law, and the Common Law says the statute exists, but there is no injured
party; and
d. since there is no injured party or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.
5. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case, then you will want to ask him the following question:
“Your Honor, let me understand this correctly, has the court made a
judicial determination that it has authority under the jurisdiction that
it is operating under, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial
Code which have been called to its attention? If he says, yes, tell him
that you put the court on notice that you will appeal that judicial
determination, and that if you are damaged by his actions, you will sue
him in Common Law action – under the jurisdiction of the U.C.C.”
QUESTIONS AND REVIEW
Note: These are some of the questions asked after the main lecture.
Some are restatements of material presented earlier, but they contain
very valuable information which is worth repeating.
COURTROOM TECHNIQUES
Question: How did you “box in” the judge?
This is easy to do if you don’t know too much. I didn’t know too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a little ignorant.
If you are arrested and you go to court, just remember that in a
criminal action, you have to understand the law or it is a reversible
error for the court to try you. If you don’t understand the law, they
can’t try you.
In any traffic court case or tax case you are called into court and the judge reads the law and then asks,
“Do you understand the charges?”
Defendant: No, (Your Honor,) I do not!
Judge:
Well, what’s so difficult about that charge? Either you drove the
wrong way on a one-way street or you didn’t. You can only go one way on
that street, and if you go the other way, it’s a fifty dollar fine.
What’s so difficult about this that you don’t understand?”
D: Well, Your Honor, it’s not the letter of the law, but rather the
nature of the law that I don’t understand. The Sixth Amendment of the
Constitution gives me the right to request the court to explain the
nature of any action against me, and upon my request, the court has the
duty to answer. I have a question about the nature of this action.
J: Well, what is that – what do you want to know?
Always! Ask them some easy questions first, as this establishes that they are answering. You ask:
D: Well, Your Honor, is this a Civil or Criminal Action?”
J: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action there could be no fine, so it has to be criminal).
D: Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will
show that this action against ___(Straw Man Name)___ is a criminal
action, is that right?
J: Yes.
D: I would like to ask another question about this criminal action.
There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution; one
is under the Common Law , and the other deals with International
Maritime Contracts , under an Admiralty Jurisdiction . Equity is Civil,
and you said this is a Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be
under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me, Your
Honor, is, there is no Corpus Delicti here that gives this court a
jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common Law.
Therefore, it doesn’t appear to me that this court is moving under the
Common Law.
J: No, I can assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law.
D: Well, thank you, your Honor, but now you make the charge against
me even more difficult to understand, the only other criminal
jurisdiction would apply only if there was an International Maritime
Contract involved and I was a party to it, it had been Breached, and the
court was operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction.
I don’t believe I have ever been under any International Maritime
Contract, so I would deny that one exists. I would have to demand that
such a contract, if it does exist, be placed into evidence, so that I
may contest it, but surely, this court is not operating under an
Admiralty Jurisdiction.
You just put words in the judge’s mouth.
J: No, I can assure you, we’re not operating under an Admiralty
Jurisdiction. We’re not out in the ocean somewhere – we’re right here in
the middle of the State of North Carolina, No, this is not an Admiralty
Jurisdiction.
D: Thank you, Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than ever. If
this/these charge/s is/are not under the Common Law, or under Admiralty –
and those are the only criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the
Constitution – what kind of jurisdiction could this court be operating
under?
J: It’s Statutory Jurisdiction.
D: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I’m glad you told me that. But I have
never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend under that, I
would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory
Jurisdiction. Can you provide me with the location of a copy?
Share this:
Thanks to: http://nesaraaustralia.com
